The Many Things that are Wrong with A&E’s “Beyond Scared Straight” Program

The “Beyond Scared Straight” message: “In prison for a day to stay out for life” certainly appeals to a television audience. The hit series from Disney’s A&E Network became the most watched original series launch in the network’s history with an audience of 3.7 million people. The show is a spin off of the multiple award-winning documentary films also produced by Arnold Shapiro.

But do “scared straight” programs really work to reduce juvenile crime? “No,” claimed Professor James Finckenauer, Ph.D., from Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice, in his address to the National Conference of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in New York City in July. Finckenauer, author of “Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phenomenon,” cogently explained why those programs don’t work by examining the concept of “deterrence” as applied to teenage thinking and behavior.

I confess, I was one of the judges who accepted the evidence that “scared straight,” programs didn’t work, but I couldn’t figure out why. After all, I thought, I certainly would have been “scared straight” after experiencing a day in prison, including being yelled at by brutal inmates, clanging bars, menacing guards, etc. Why wouldn’t it work on at-risk teens? What was wrong with the headline: “They think they’re fighters. Will it change when they can’t fight back?”

Plenty, according to Finckenauer. First, “Scared straight” programs arise out of the concept of “vicarious deterrence,” which he defined as “avoiding behavior by experiencing what happens to others.”

“Those programs require young people to project into the future,” Finckenauer said. “Teenagers don’t think like that, they don’t think logically or long term. That’s why they’re kids. They are impulsive, and think short term, especially when it comes to punishment.”

Finckenauer mentioned a kind of “optimism” that works against vicarious deterrence. “Kids know how hit and miss the criminal justice system is. They believe they might not get caught when they think about committing a crime. What young people react to is: (1) How swift is the punishment in terms of the behavior? (2) How certain is it that a consequence will occur? and (3) How severe is the punishment? The extreme nature of the punishment shown in “scared straight” programs doesn’t match the expectations of young people. They don’t picture themselves locked up.

“Scared straight programs are developed by adults for kids, but kids don’t react the same way as adults,” Finckenauer said. That’s why the television series is popular with adults, but unsuccessful with kids.

“Big, muscular, tough guys are what the kids see during a prison tour as the inmates yell and scream at them in the hopes of scaring them out of committing a crime,” Finckenauer said. “Kids don’t see beaten down losers.” It’s a disconnect.

Most helpful to the judges in the audience was Finckenauer’s discussion of deterrence in the general population. “There are three general types,” he said. “First, the undeterrable, the psychopaths, where deterrence doesn’t work at all. Then, at the opposite end are the Catholic nuns, who are already deterred. Finally, in the middle is the great mass of the public, those who are tempted to cheat on a tax return, to run a red light, to fudge on an application, and that’s the group that responds to deterrence to stay honest.”

So why is “Beyond Scared Straight” A&E’s most watched program?

“There’s a gut level attractiveness,” Finckenauer said. “An inside look at prisons, clanging doors, delinquent kids. It makes for great visual appeal and good sound bites. Also, there’s a great deal of frustration with perceived liberal treatment of young offenders.”

Perhaps adult viewers are vicariously experiencing their own “get tough on kids” viewpoint.

That’s where A&E’s “Scared Straight” programming could be harmful, I thought. It diverts public support from the evidence-based programs that do work, in the areas of prevention, intervention, diversion, mental health and family counseling. As juvenile judges, we were taught that sanctions for kids should be swift, certain, and appropriately severe. Parents are taught the same in parenting classes. Why then would we think that the opposite would work? “Beyond Scared Straight” makes a good TV program for adults, but it’s a lousy concept for keeping at-risk kids out of trouble.

What at-risk kids need are jobs. Jobs will keep them out of prison while a 'scared straight' experience won't. Jobs dignify them, put legal money in their pockets, and provide mentoring and career goal opportunities. It's the employer, small or large businessman, non-profit executive, teacher or community volunteer whose lives they should be experiencing, not the convicted, imprisoned felon.

Given the Disney channel’s financial success with the “Beyond Scared Straight” series, why don’t we challenge Disney to donate a portion of its profits to one of the foundations that does so much for at-risk kids such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Eckerd Family Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, or the Henry and Ryla White Foundation? Any of these worthy foundations could design a practical program to provide jobs for at-risk kids. They would also put the money to good use in proven programs that truly do turn around at-risk kids.

What about that, Disney?

Related Series

Scared Straight programs, which take at-risk kids to jails in an attempt to frighten them out of a life of crime, are now part of the popular landscape of the U.S. The A&E Network hit ratings gold with its "Beyond Scared Straight" reality show and "Saturday Night Live" featured a series of skits spoofing the concept. But study after study have shown scared straight-type programs to be ineffective at best and counter-productive at worst, actually increasing the likelihood that a kid will one day enter the criminal justice system. So why do parents continue to place their kids in scared straight programs? For more than three years JJIE has provided extensive reporting on the issue. Read all of it below.

Irene Sullivan is a recently-retired juvenile judge in Florida who is now traveling the country advocating for kids. Her book, <a href="http://raisedbythecourts.org/">Raised by the Courts: One Judge’s Insight into Juvenile Justice</a>, is about her experiences on the bench.

7 thoughts on “The Many Things that are Wrong with A&E’s “Beyond Scared Straight” Program”

Oh that’s wonderful!! More professional people giving their professional opinion about how to deal with situations they may know nothing about. The problem is everyone is in everyone’s business trying to raise their kids and telling the parents what they can and can’t do. These kids need to be held accountable for their actions!!! Kids know what to say to who they need to say it to. If we don’t change the way things are going it’s going to be a dangerous dangerous world. They know how may times they can break the law, they know how to say the right thing to get the parents in trouble. The court systems these days give the kids a slap on the wrist. It sad really sad.

I would agree with you Sandy. We no longer can correct our children but by god we are held responsible if they get into trouble, now tell me how this makes sense. I believe the scared straight programs can work if the name of the program is changes and a few more things were spelled out for the ones who know it all. I am a parent and wish to god something like this was around with my kid it would of impacted him for sure. It is time to help children and quit treating them like they are idiots. They know how to play the games you legal eagles and do whatever they want,
yes, concerned parent

Did you not understand the article? The premise of bringing these kids into a situation like this is to show them plainly, “this is it, you continue to act the way you do and you’ll end up like us… or worse”. But it doesn’t work because kids don’t think long term as they said, if the message is: Do this and get THAT life then yes the program will be a failure.

You are absolutely right that there needs to be something out there to help these kids before they turn to crime; a job, career help, sports programs, an after-school program, counseling and other work can be done. No one is disputing the worst thing to do is to neglect these youth… the common saying and theme being that ‘no one looked out for them’. But it is literally insane to do something that invests time and money into something that we know won’t help them and is equally as damaging or more then neglect, and all just to satisfy our appeal with little delinquent Jonny getting “his” from some beat-down loser (and they are losers). I’m not against showing them the reality of prison life but I question the effect it will have on them and the resouces it would take from something we know is effective today. Having someone scream in their face and push them around for a few days will not likely be a change from their home life anyways.

Judge, you and the Professor are so breathtakingly ignorant that it is ludicrous. What the professor fails to recognize is that the concept of deterrance works when people that he so graciously calls “beat up losers” talk to these kids. Why? Because that is all they know, especially in families where the older family members are all inmates. Gang members, murderers, etc. are what these kids know. Yes, it is sad and pathetic. These kids don’t have the luxury of going to listen to an egghead professor who will go home to the luxury of his suburban home-it means NOTHING to them. They want to see someone that means something in the community for whatever reason tell them the truth about incarceration. And you see it every week in the older convicts who tell heartbreaking stories about how no one bothered with them. Jobs mean nothing-family counseling means nothing. That is just nonsense. When they see these older cons, the ones that have no hope, they know…why cuz that was me.